RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3760, 15 January 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

- "YESTERDAY. . (Before Harry Kenrick, Esq., R.M.) GORDON V. VERCOE.

Claim, £20 value of a cattle dog named "Charlie." The following evidence was taken yesterday after we went to press. Mr W. Gordon, cross-examined by Mr Miller, deposed—l swear to the dbg as a whole, bat I do' not know him by any particular points. The dog knew me directly I called him. By Mr Cuff—Mr Vercoe never told me that the'dog was his son's. Henry Gordon, sworn, said he knew the dog, a black and white colley. He took . it from the steamer to his father's house. He saw the doe at Vercoe's house. Mr Vercoe's sou said he got the dog from McCollutn on condition that if a man sent for it ho was to^give.it up. (The remainder of the evidence was corroborative ). Walter Halton deposed that he knew Mr H. Gordon, and also the dog "Charlie." He last saw it at Waitekauri twelve months ago. It was black, with a white breast and a white stripe down the nose, and also a white tip on the tail. . . Wm. Vercoe said : On the 14th of March last a man named Alex. McCollum gave him a dog. He looked at the dog's mouth and could not see any %mark. He had nothing to do with the ""dog, and had no control over it, ,

John Thomas deposed that he got the dog about 10 months ago. He had no mark in his mouth when he got him, but he thought the mark was caused by the bite of ( ' a centipede when at Waiomo. He was willing to give up the dog if Gordon could prove bis ownership to it.

Alexander McCollum recognised the dog. He got it in February last from a man named Henry Drew. By Mr Cufi—Drew did not tell me where he got the dog. I had never seen the man i before, nor have I seen him since.

His Worthip, after summing up the evidence, gave judgment for the plaintiff, each party to pay his own costs.